Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Breaking news - and this should be no surprise - Donald Sterling, the for-now-owner of the Clippers basketball team is apparently a registered Republican voter in L.A. county. Of course, the radical right has tried to pretend otherwise, but we know they are not a factual bunch. (That claim appears to be based on only two political donations, small ones at that, one for $2,000, twelve years ago, and one 25 years ago for $5k. The radical right extremist propaganda machine was working overtime trying to tar Sterling as a racist Democrat - not true! His politics are right wing to the core!

Donald Sterling and the Neverending Fantasy of ‘Democrat’ Racism

Oh, how eager the conservative press is to call Donald Sterling a Democrat! It’s all part of their larger fantasy narrative about conservatism and race.

Update: Now comes the utterly shocking news that despite his campaign donations to the contrary, Sterling is—sit down—a registered Republican. The Los Angeles Times's Michael Hiltzik tweeted as much this morning, and I confirmed through a source that a Donald T. Sterling who lives in Beverly Hills and was born on April 26, 1934 is indeed a registered Republican voter in L.A. County.

And here we have his own words, echoing the 2012 GOP national convention theme:

Donald Sterling repeated the same false claims made by the supporters of loser Mitt Romney at the Republican convention in 2012 with the theme "We built that".

“I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? … Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?”

Apparently 'this Donald', as distinct from the other right wing lunatic with the same first name who makes prominent gaffes like 'the blacks love me' (they don't) thinks that when he makes money, he earns it, he 'makes it', but when the players do so, he is giving them a gift, there is no 'earning[' involved, only 'taking'. Nothing about that thought process is consistent or rational or fair or honest. Here's the thing -- simply starting a league does not make money; if we are to believe that Donald Sterling rather than his players made the team, and by extension, the players as an aggregate did not make the league a success, then we have to embrace that sports movie mantra 'follow the money'. Donald Sterling has not been much of a success. It has been the relatively recent performance by mostly black players, coaches and managers who have made that difference. The most Donald Sterling can claim is dumb luck. He did not do the overwhelming majority of the hard work. He was not some brilliant executive owner. He has in fact been something of an epic failure, in some cases an actual obstruction to the success of his own team. As noted in 2012 coverage by NPR:

This summer, the controversy over "you didn't build that" has been a far more sustained phenomenon, even before this convention. While primarily limited to the conservative media, it has taken on a life of its own. The refusal of more mainstream media to take it as seriously has only made it catnip for those who do. And at the Tampa convention, this line of attack, legitimate or not, all but took over the proceedings.

And it is no surprise that the team plays basketball in a facility with the name Staples on it, who also can't admit that - as the Bible puts it - the laborer is worthy of their hire, or that other people's efforts EARN their compensation, it is not a 'gift'(same source). (The Staples arena is privately owned, but it got a special deal from the city of Los Angeles in order for it to be built and benefits from the services of the city of L.A.):

Tom Stemberg, founder of the office supply store Staples, gave one of several testimonials for Romney on the final night. But he spent much of his time raking the White House for its supposed attitude toward business: "They just don't get it. They don't get it because they don't believe in the spirit of the entrepreneur. They don't understand what it means to risk money to create something new. They don't understand the hard work it takes to get a business off the ground."

It is reminiscent of the rhetoric heard about socialism and the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s and reprised a generation later in reaction to the Great Society. In those days, the phrase was "running government more like a business." Such talk had faded in recent years, at least temporarily, after the meltdown that began in late 2007 shook many people's faith in the wisdom of markets.

But here in Tampa, the centrality of business and its needs and wants were front and center. Foreign policy was an afterthought in most of the presentations, including Romney's acceptance speech. Social issues were scarcely mentioned, rating a passing reference of less than a minute's duration in the nominee's finale. Yet Romney used the word business 17 times in that same speech. One of them was a reference to the "freedom to build a business." One more use of the most reliable applause line of this convention. If the economy is the top issue and jobs are the key measurement of the economy, the Romney Republicans believe they can win by convincing the public that the current president simply doesn't understand where jobs come from. The central theme of this week in Tampa is about to become the party's mantra for the fall."

To make a play on words, it was the mantra in the fall for the fall - for the fall and fail of Mitt Romney, and now for the fall from grace and power, the epic fail, of Donald Sterling.

"Arms in
the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the
defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self
defense."

TRUTH: A version of this was even used by the NRA for several years. Because what Adams—federalist, signer of the Sedition Acts, and perennial pessimist about human nature—really liked was armed mobs. In fact, this is a bastardization of a longer quote in defense of the Constitution,
which says something very different—namely, that armed untrained
citizens in mass posed a threat to liberty and constitutional
government:

To
suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual
discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of
towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law
of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the
laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

Abigail Adams wrote about her anxieties for Massachusetts and her disappointment in the behavior of
some of its inhabitants n a letter to Thomas Jefferson from 29 January 1787:

With regard to the tumults in my Native State which you inquire about, I wish I could
say that report had exaggerated them, it is too true Sir that they have been carried to so
allarming a Height as to stop the courts of justice in several Counties. Ignorant, restless
desperadoes, without conscience or principals, have led a deluded multitude to follow their
standard, under pretence of grievances which have no existence but in their own imaginations.
(3)

According to Abigail Adams, the grievances of those closing the courts in
Massachusetts

Abigail snappishly dismissed
the demands and grievances of these "mobish insurgents" who were
"sapping the foundation, and destroying the whole fabrick" of the state:

Some of them were crying out for a paper currency, some for an equal distribution of
property, some were for annihilating all debts, others complained that the Court of common pleas
was unnecessary that the sitting of the general court in Boston was a grievance. By this list
you will see the materials which compose this rebellion and the necessity there is of the wisest
and more vigorus measures to quell & suppress it…(4)

She firmly believed that "these people make[?] only a small part of the
State." Time and attention to the true causes of the problems by "the more
Sensible and judicious" residents would resolve the situation.

Benjamin Franklin had no sympathy for "the mad attempts to overthrow" the Massachusetts Constitution
or "the wickedness and ignorance of a few, who, while they enjoy it, are insensible of its
excellence." Franklin, like
Samuel Adams,
had little patience for those who he believed sought to undermine or
overthrow a government constituted by and for the people.

"There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of
government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government
leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a
new species of government, or rather no government at all."

I know at least one of you doesn't understand the meaning of this passage, but I will quote it again anyway:

Whatever theoretical merit there may be
to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against
dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of
the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.–Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

I think Abagail Adams pretty much sums up the situation in regard to using the Second Amendment to justify insurrection:

Ignorant, restless
desperadoes, without conscience or principals, have led a deluded multitude to follow their
standard, under pretence of grievances which have no existence but in their own imaginations.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

OK, I am politically green. In other words, if I go for a single
issue: it's the environment. I have been active in environmentalism
since I was a kid. I love the outdoors, but does the NRA really love
the outdoors as much as they claim?

The National Rifle
Association has long claimed to represent America’s
hunters and shooters in the fight to protect one of America’s oldest
traditions as the self-proclaimed "largest pro-hunting organization in
the world" The NRA’s bylaws even include an article setting a core goal
"to promote and
defend hunting…as a viable and necessary method of fostering the
propagation, growth and conservation…of our renewable wildlife
resources". But it turns out that its by-laws are just empty rhetoric.

A
report by the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) showed
that the NRA gave much more money to and gave much higher ratings to
politicians who:

In 2001, opposed the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which was
defeated even though it would have protected millions of acres of our
best hunting land.

In 2005, tried to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of
public land to “corporate interests at prices far below market value,”
as stated in the report. “While conservation groups across America came
out against the (sale of public land), the NRA stayed silent.”

An annual survey conducted by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is
the best source we have to judge the NRA's political leanings It was the primarily source used by ASHA to come to its
conclusions. On the front page of the report, in fact, AHSA states that
the NRA gave campaign contributions to 52 of the 53 members of Congress
who received a zero rating from LCV for their conservation voting
records.

In 2012, six oil and gas companies contributed a total of between
$1.3 million and $5.6 million to the NRA, according to CAP. (The
companies are Clayton Williams Energy, J.L. Davis Gas Consulting, Kamps
Propane, Barrett Brothers Oil and Gas, Saulsbury Energy Services, and KS
Industries.)

The NRA's heftiest energy contributor by far is Clayton Williams
Energy. CWE is the NRA's largest corporate donor outside of the firearm
industry, and one of its six largestoverall donors.
The publicly owned Texas energy company has donated no less than $2
million to the NRA in the past four years: at least $1 million in 2010,
according to an SEC filing, and at least $1 million in 2012, according to the NRA. In 2010, CEO, president, director, and board chairman Clayton Williams Jr. told a meeting of oil drillers that he'd given more than $3 million to the NRA. In 2013, Williams and his wife Modesta were inducted into the NRA's Golden Ring of Freedom, a small circle of major donors. The couple was celebrated in a 10-page feature story in a 2011 issue of the NRA's Ring of Freedom magazine.

The reality is that the NRA is out of line with America’s dedicated conservation
organizations. The nation’s biggest gun lobby
gave $4,085,277 to support the 193 members of Congress who received
poor conservation ratings from the LCV and only $390,897, 10 times less,
to the 245 members of Congress who have received high conservation
ratings.

Additionally, the NRA's lobbying on bills
detrimental to the environment contradicts the express commitment of of
its lobbying arm to "be involved in any issue that directly or
indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics
as hunting and access to hunting lands [and] wilderness and wildlife
conservation." CAP's report also cites several polls showing that
preservation of wildlife is important to most sportsmen: A 2012 poll
found that two-thirds of sportsmen want to maintain current conservation
levels and oppose "allowing private companies to develop public lands
when it would limit the public's enjoyment of—or access to—these lands."

Additionally,
a 2013 survey of hunters and anglers, nearly 75 percent of respondents
opposed selling public lands to help reduce the deficit. On the other
hand, there is a big push to sell public lands from the Libertarian
segment of the republican party.

It would seem that the
NRA is working against the interest of hunters and sportsmens despite
its by-laws to the contrary. In fact, I would say that the NRA works
against the interests of responsible gun owners--if there are still very
many left.

Actually, I haven't seen the NRA point to any actual legislation
they have supported which would give any credence to their claim of
being "pro-conservation". In fact, I have seen more destruction of the
US countryside in the past 40 odd years. It seems to me that if the
NRA were as "pro-environment" as it is "pro-gun" that there wouldn't be a
problem with development and the US would not have decaying cities in
the same way that guns have become an epidemic health crisis.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Take the Altmeyer Authoritarian Quiz here. (reputed to be the latest version).

It should be pretty obvious that fascists and other authoritarians tend to reflect a conservative bias, as you read below, or if you take the quiz above.

And if you are unfamiliar with authoritarian personalities, or with right wing authoritarianism, it is defined by the psychologydictionary.org as:

What is AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY?

a distinct personalitypattern that is characterized by (a) a preoccupation with power and status, (b) strict adherence to simplified conventional values, (c) an attitude of great deference to authority
figures while demanding subservience from those regarded as lower in
status, and (d) hostility toward minorities or other outgroups and to
people who deviate from conventional moral prescriptions.

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY: "An authoritarian personality is characterized by the need for power and subservience from others. "

You can read about it and Robert Altmeyer here, and here; and then more here, which explains and demonstrates some of the work which preceded Altmeyer:

Authoritarian Personality

Adorno et al. (1950) proposed that prejudice is the results of an individual’s personality type.
They
piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F
for fascism). Adorno argued that deep-seated personality traits
predisposed some individuals to be highly sensitive to totalitarian and
antidemocratic ideas and therefore were prone to be highly prejudicial.
The evidence they gave to support this conclusion included:

• Case studies, e.g. Nazis
• Psychometric testing (use of the F-scale)
• Clinical interviews
revealed situational aspects of their childhood, such as the fact that
they had been brought up by very strict parents or guardians, which were
found of participants who scored highly on the F-scale not always found
in the backgrounds of low scorers.

Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:

• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status
• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs
• Conventional, upholding traditional values

Adorno
concluded that people with authoritarian personalities where likely to
categories people into “us” and “them” groups, seeing their own group as
superior. Therefore, the study indicated that individuals with a very strict upbringing by critical and harsh parents were most likely to develop an authoritarian personality.
Adorno
believed that this was because the individual in question was not able
to express hostility towards their parents (for being strict and
critical). Consequently, the person would then displace this aggression
/ hostility onto safer targets, namely those who are weaker, such as
ethnic minorities.
Adorno et al. felt that authoritarian traits,
as identified by the F-Scale, predispose some individuals towards
'fascistic' characteristics such as:
• Ethnocentrism, i.e. the tendency to favor one's own ethnic group:
• Obsession with rank and status
• Respect for and submissiveness to authority figures
• Preoccupation with power and toughness.
In
other words, according to Adorno, the Eichmanns of this world are there
because the have authoritarian personalities and therefore are
predisposed cruelty, as a result of their upbringing.
There is
evidence that the authoritarian personality exists. This might help to
explain why some people are more resistant to changing their prejudiced
views.

Go ahead, take the test; I bet you will find the results coordinate strongly with the political ideology you favor.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

The Quiet Mike Blog
has yet another nail in the coffin of the gun lobby's most prominent
Bullshit artist. In fact, I'm really surprised his career hasn't taken
the path of Michael Bellesisles except that he is on the right.

It
seems that the right believes that if you keep repeating lies they
somehow become truths, but there may be something to that given what the
Supreme Court has done in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

Anybody
who has looked into Lott knows he is the pro-gun equivalent of Michael
Bellesisles (except I think Bellesisles was sort of onto something),
which the Quiet Mike Blog points out:

Critics of Lott’s research are plentiful, although he dismisses them as “Liberal.” So it’s important to note this blistering rebuke by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin:

“.”“Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer
crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He
has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the
survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents
long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can’t
identify or produce. Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is
still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous
scrap of paper proving the survey’s existence, such as the research
protocol or survey instrument.”

“By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But
Lott’s invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other
scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to
deceive to protect and promote his work.”

John
Lott is quick to respond to his critics, this writer included. But he
remains unable to definitively address the specific problem of his
questioned data. On twitter, he produced these links to absolve himself
of these issues.

The question remains as
to why rubbish like John Lott's and the rest of the pseudoscholars has
remained unchallenged? Why is the "pro-gun" side afraid of research (or
is that research adverse?)?

John R. Lott Jr. is the key to defeating the gun lobbies. His data is
either deliberately misleading or subject to ignorant methodology. It
has been repeatedly defended only with his own responses. If Lott is
held accountable for his mistakes and mistruths, gun lobby talking
points would get their volume turned down. It will be fully revealed how
baseless many gun lobby arguments are. They are motivated by what they
want, not how things are, and certainly aren’t interested in the greater
good of the country.

The short
form--don't call people "sheeple" if you are unwilling, or just plain
unable to research and discover the facts for yourself.

And don't try to persuade someone of something which they can spot as bullshit.

You only come off as idiots--no matter how much you try to soothe yourselves into thinking you're the "intelligentsia".

Friday, April 25, 2014

I often think of Ambrose Bierce's definition of Patriotism from the
Devil's Dictionary when ever I see someone who "wraps himself in the
flag":

“Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the
torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's
famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a
scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior
lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first.”

There are a few reasons I would mention this,
but this comes from the NRA's using the song at their national
convention not realising the actual significance of the song.

It is one of the most misinterpreted songs ever. Most people think
it is a patriotic song about American pride, when it actually cast a
shameful eye on how America treated its Vietnam veterans. Springsteen
considers it one of his best songs, but it bothers him that it is so
widely misinterpreted. With the rollicking rhythm, enthusiastic chorus,
and patriotic album cover, it is easy to think this has more to do with
American pride than Vietnam shame.

Springsteen
talked about this in a 2005 interview with National Public Radio. Said
Bruce: "This was when the Republicans first mastered the art of
co-opting anything and everything that seemed fundamentally American,
and if you were on the other side, you were somehow unpatriotic. I make
American music, and I write about the place I live and who I am in my
lifetime. Those are the things I'm going to struggle for and fight for."Speaking
of how the song was misinterpreted, he added: "In my songs, the
spiritual part, the hope part is in the choruses. The blues, and your
daily realities are in the details of the verses. The spiritual comes
out in the choruses, which I got from Gospel music and the church."

Of
course, if one listens the words, one finds that this is hardly the
patriotic standard the right would like to present it as being. Once
again, I wonder if the irony is lost on those who would like to portray
this as being "patriotic" while they talk about acts of insurrection
which are clearly unconstitutional and illegal.

The thing is that
the Right sees the gun control issue as a means to divert workers from
voting according to their economic interests and that of their families.
The Right sees it as a particularly clever way to prevent workers from
following the candidate endorsements of their union, which are made
based on economic interests of the members. Neal Knox, a former head of
the National Rife Association (NRA), said as much:

"[The gun issue] is the one thing that will spin the blue-collar union member away from his union."

The
NRA conducted a massive get-out-the-vote effort on behalf of George W.
Bush. Chuck Cunningham, a former director of voter education for the
Christian Coalition, led that effort for the NRA. Before working for the
Christian Coalition, Cunningham was executive director of the
anti-union New England Citizens for Right-to-Work.

Charlton
Heston, former president of the NRA, supported the National
Right-to-Work Committee in 1994 when it lobbied Congress to defeat S.55 /
H.R.5 Anti-Strikebreaker Bill. This would have prohibited employers
from permanently replacing striking workers (an act which is illegal in
other industrialized countries). Heston appealed to union members to
"put freedom first" and support NRA-endorsed candidates, and yet the
right to strike is a most basic and essential freedom. Heston personally
appealed to members of Congress to defeat pro-worker legislation that
would prohibit strikebreakers and produced a video on behalf of the
National Right-to-Work Committee, which called him their "world famous
ally."In
1996, Charlton Heston championed the most serious threat to the very
existence of labor unions. He assisted the National Right-to-Work
Committee in a $260,000 ad campaign to lobby Congress to pass a National
Right-to-Work Bill which had been introduced. Right-to-Work legislation
would prohibit unions from negotiating any union security clause in
their contracts. Union membership would be totally voluntary, though all
workers must receive the wages and benefits negotiated in the union
contract and they must be legally represented in any grievances. It has
nothing to do with a right to work, but is part of a larger corporate
strategy to financially weaken and eventually eliminate unions. Now
deceased, Heston was a very effective spokesman for the NRA in
distracting workers from the Right’s real agenda.

Of course, one
thing that propaganda does is short-circuit the reason. Take things out
of context and use them to stir up people who cannot think for
themselves all the while calling those who do examine and question
"sheeple".

Remove the right to keep an bear arms from the stated
purpose of a well-regulated militia (and the actual constitutional
framework that fits into) and something which makes sense suddenly
becomes a black and white issue. Those who are opposed to the fictional
concept of gun rights are somehow "unAmerican" and against the
Constitution, while those who believe in it and would wage war against
the United States despite what Article III, Section iii says are "patriots". What could be more nonsensical?

But, what really sums this up is what Critic Greil Marcus
wrote about the Song "Born in the USA": "Clearly the key to the enormous explosion of Bruce's popularity
is the misunderstanding… He is a tribute to the fact that people hear
what they want to hear."

Tell 'em what they want to hear and fuck the truth.

BTW, thanks to the Wisconsin AFL-CIO and their book "The Right Wing" for the bit about the NRA and workers' issues.

In 2013, Minnesota and other states legalized the recognition of same sex marriage. Other countries legalized the recognition of same sex marriage. In state after state, same sex marriage bans, and bans on recognizing same sex marriages from other states are being overturned by the courts. A recent poll by KSTP, arguably of a too few people to be very representative shows a majority of Minnesotans are pro-same-sex marriage, with a significant minority of those polled opposing. A poll last month by Pew Research showed 61% of young Republicans (defined as under the age of 30) favor same sex marriage. The old bigots of the Radical Right are threatening to try to reverse the progress in LGBT civil rights, in Minnesota, and nationwide.

In comments on same sex marriage on this blog, and in pretty much every locality where the topic has been raised, we hear from those who oppose same-sex equality of all kinds - marriage equality, as well as approving other forms of discrimination, is justified by religious belief, by citing the Bible as authority.

In comment after comment, speech after speech, we hear how SINCERELY this is believed, as if intensity or sincerity made any difference to the inherent unfairness of the opposition in making a group of Americans second class citizens for the sexual orientation with which they are born. (It does not.) That is wrong, that is bigoted, that is engaging in hate, no matter how you try to spin it as being about loving the sinner, but not the sin. This is LYING, and deception, which IS an actual sin.

I have long contended that conservatives consistently and persistently believe things which are not true or factually accurate. The views of conservatives on same-sex marriage are just one further example.

Briefly, there are serious questions of accuracy and validity of both the interpretation and the translation of the texts in question. And there are inaccuracies in the way that religious fundamentalists represent the events supposedly linked to homosexuality in the Bible that are also inaccurate.
For example, in the events surrounding Sodom and Gomorrah, God is reported to have sent two angels, disguised as men, to destroy the city, not because of gay sex being rampant, but because (as recounted in Ezekiel 16:49-50)

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were full of pride and arrogance, overfed, and idle: they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Is there any indication that ALL strangers visiting either Sodom or Gomorrah are gay-raped? No. Clearly, the townspeople in the Bible account who show up to Lot's house are deeply enraged that these two strangers propose to destroy their city, their families and friends, and themselves. They are seen, so to speak, as foreign terrorists. The form of anger attributed to the townspeople is they want to humiliate, hurt and demean them through rape, an act not of sex or sexual attraction, but of violence, domination and a desire to cause pain and maximum humiliation and helplessness. The involvement of the genitalia of the rapist is not even necessarily involved.

The acts are rarely homosexual in nature but rather an effort to feel powerful or dominant over others.

That this was the case with Lot and his disguised angel-guests is supported by the offer by Lot of his two virgin daughters to be gang-raped by the angry men of the town; clearly his expectation with that offer was that these were heterosexual oriented men.

If you look at the parts of Leviticus that reference same-sex acts, which may or may not reflect primary sexual orientation, these apply exclusively to the tribe of the Levites, from whom the priestly classes were drawn, and then only in very specific religious ritual contexts.

Why should we care about what might otherwise seem to be splitting hairs? Currently of the 12 milion Jews in the world, there are four divisions, or distinct groups of religious sectarian practice. Three of the four, comprising some 85% of all Jews worldwide, permit same-sex marriage; only Orthodox Jews, of which there are roughly 2 million world-wide, and which are arguably the most restrictive and traditional, prohibit same sex marriage. The Old Testament in Christianity reflects the adoption of the Torah, the quintessential foundational text of Judaism.

Israel, which clearly identifies itself as a Jewish state, is a unique democracy/theocracy hybrid, currently governed by a conservative coalition. That conservative coalition last year proposed legally recognizing same sex marriage last year. It is being recognized as a civil relationship, but it also acknowledge the right of the various denominations within Judaism to perform same-sex marriage.

So we have scripture specific to only one of the tribes of Israel, and then only to those who held religious office, regarding Jewish religious practice, being extrapolated in a way clearly unintended in the original texts by Christians co-opting these texts - and co-opting them rather sloppily - and then applying those texts in a false and extremely draconian, hateful manner that results in the creation of an ostracized group of second-class citizens who are demeaned and even physically harmed, using a false claim of God and the Bible and sin.

That these sections of the book of Leviticus do NOT refer to ALL male-male relationships, or to them in any context other than relating to religious ceremonies is outlined below, from Religious Tolerance.org:

The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in early Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

I have been asked to write about why criminal defence attorneys are
important to the US legal system because it seems that the right wing is
unaware of this fact. This is because it has been brought to my attention that Debo Adegbile was adamantly and vocally opposed by conservatives due to his participation in an appeal filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

While
many people hide behind the US Constitution, few seem to have any
actual knowledge of what it says, or even understanding of what it
says. If they did, they would know that The Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There are actually FIVE rights that this covers:

the right to counsel of choice

the right to appointed counsel

the right to conflict-free counsel

the effective assistance of counsel

and the right to represent oneself

I'm not going to address those specific aspects of the right to
counsel, but I will say that the Constitutional right is limited to
CRIMINAL cases.

The right to counsel is generally
regarded as an important part of the right to a fair trial and legal due process. Thus, a
criminal defence attorney is a vital part of the criminal justice system
if one wants to have one which is seen as fair and just.

It was a part of Magna Carta which established the principle of due process in clause 29:

NO
Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold,
or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other
wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by
lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to
no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

While
not specifically quoted in the US Constitution (it is in some state
Constitutions: in particular Florida's), it is embodied in the Fifth
Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law."

I would also add that the
US Constitution spends a fair amount of space on criminal procedure with
the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, among other articles in that
document, addressing common issues in criminal justice matters.
Obviously, the founders wanted a Federal Criminal Justice system that
was seen as fair, yet the right to counsel is far from being strongly
implemented in practise.

A defendant's need for a
lawyer is nowhere better stated than in the words of Justice
Sutherland in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932):

The
right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did
not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent
and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of
law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining
for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with
the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put
on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent
evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible.
He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his
defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand
of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it,
though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he
does not know how to establish his innocence.

John Adams, took the task of defending the British Soldiers accused of carrying out what would be known as the Boston
Massacre. Adams took the case to ensure that justice was served. Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the
importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them.
Adams later wrote that he risked infamy and even death, and incurred
much popular suspicion and prejudice, for the sense of duty he felt to
offer the British soldiers an adequate defence.

Adams wrote in his diary:

"The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers,
procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the
most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole
life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.
Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain
upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches,
anciently.”

John Adams recognised that even unpopular client deserve a defence if
one wants to have a legal system which is fair. We may not like a
defendant, but they are still entitled to the best defence legally
possible. The fact that Debo Adegbile represented an unpopular client is not something which should be discouraged or disparaged. In fact, it is something which is vitally important if people want a functional legal system.

The right to counsel is an
important part of the US concept of due process and legal fairness. I
would question those who would condemn someone for having played the
part of defence counsel as to what sort of legal system would they like
to see implemented?

I know one thing, that the people who wrote the US Constitution would disagree with them if they want to demonise the criminal defence bar: especially John Adams.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Earth is the 'blue marble', also a term for a series of photos of the planet taken from space by NASA, first in 1972, taken from Apollo 17, and then for subsequent images (like these, left).

Most of us are familiar with the term 'green energy'. It is an umbrella term for sustainable / renewable energy. That includes a huge range of tech, including but not limited to solar and wind energy, bio fuels and others.

Saltwater power
It has been called saltwater power, osmotic power or blue energy, and it is one of the most promising new sources of renewable power not yet fully tapped. Just as it takes huge amounts of energy to desalinate water, energy is generated when the reverse happens and saltwater is added to freshwater. Through a process called reverse electrodialysis, blue energy powerplants could capture this energy as it is released naturally in estuaries around the world.

As we have seen from the attempts at locating the missing aircraft in the Indian Ocean, in some regards we know more about space than we do about the ocean on our own planet.

If we can stop polluting the seas and oceans on earth long enough to explore our options to make use of it for clean energy, there are some other forms of aquatic, or 'blue' power that show potential.

Continuing from MNN:

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)
Ocean thermal energy conversion, or OTEC for short, is a hydro energy conversion system that uses the tempurature difference between deep and shallow waters to power a heat engine. This energy could be tapped by building platforms or barges out at sea, taking advantage of thermal layers found between the ocean depths.

and one more possible form of 'blue power':

Vortex-induced vibrations
This form of renewable energy, which draws power from slow water currents, was inspired by the movement of fish. The energy can be captured as water flows past a network of rods. Eddies, or swirls, form in an alternating pattern, pushing and pulling an object up or down or side to side to create mechanical energy. It works in the same way that fish curve their bodies to glide between the vortices shed by the bodies of the fish in front of them, essentially riding in each other's wake.

We live in the 'land of 10,000 lakes'; we border one of the enormously valuable sources of clean fresh water, lake Superior. So long as we live on the blue marble, we need to be mindful of the benefits of clean water, of not polluting it, and of safeguarding everything from preventing pollution, to the possibilities of our water as a source of clean, renewable energy.

The next time you hear a conservative insist that we cannot have regulation to ensure clean water, that we can not end our dependence on fossil fuels without economic collapse, think of this: since the founding of the EPA, we have made a 70% improvement to our air quality, while doubling our GDP. It is not either /or; that is a false choice presented by conservatives. Repudiate it. Keep our blue marble shiny blue - and green. Preserve our land, our air and our water. We CAN do it; it is a choice.

It is a choice we make by doing things like funding effective regulation and innovation.

...between 1980 and 2012, gross domestic product increased 133 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 92 percent, energy consumption increased 27 percent, and U.S. population grew by 38 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent.

The need for energy drives global warming, as well as wars and pollution.

Clean, inexpensive, accessible energy would go a long way towards not only a healthier and cleaner planet, but towards global peace.

So, naturally conservatives HATE it, in any form, but most notably at the moment in the renewable energy of solar power.

The radical right - Grover Norquist, the Koch Brothers (of big oil fame) and the other fossil fuel special interests that OWN conservatives through the tentacles of ALEC - are attacking the expansion of solar energy.

Who else could hate clean, readily accessible, renewable solar energy? It goes back a long ways. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House when he was president. Ronald "Ray-gun", who only loved science and tech when it was weapon-izable - took them down.

They've come a LONG long way since the third quarter of the 20th century. NOW solar energy is becoming more high tech, more viable, MORE COMPETITIVE.

Solar, once almost universally regarded as a virtuous, if perhaps over-hyped, energy alternative, has now grown big enough to have enemies.
The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the nation's largest power companies have backed efforts in recent months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.
Alarmed environmentalists and their allies in the solar industry have fought back, battling the other side to a draw so far. Both sides say the fight is growing more intense as new states, including Ohio, South Carolina and Washington, enter the fray.
At the nub of the dispute are two policies found in dozens of states. One requires utilities to get a certain share of power from renewable sources. The other, known as net metering, guarantees homeowners or businesses with solar panels on their roofs the right to sell any excess electricity back into the power grid at attractive rates.
Net metering forms the linchpin of the solar-energy business model. Without it, firms say, solar power would be prohibitively expensive.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a membership group for conservative state lawmakers, recently drafted model legislation that targeted net metering. The group also helped launch efforts by conservative lawmakers in more than half a dozen states to repeal green energy mandates.
"State governments are starting to wake up," Christine Harbin Hanson, a spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group backed by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, said in an email. The organization has led the effort to overturn the mandate in Kansas, which requires that 20% of the state's electricity come from renewable sources.
"These green energy mandates are bad policy," said Hanson, adding that the group was hopeful Kansas would be the first of many dominoes to fall.
The group's campaign in that state compared the green energy mandate to Obamacare, featuring ominous images of Kathleen Sebelius, the outgoing secretary of Health and Human Services, who was Kansas' governor when the state adopted the requirement.

Kansas, home of Koch Industries, failed to push through anti-solar legislation. But they spent a LOT of money trying. A grass roots movement thwarted them - a REAL grass movement, not one of the Koch funded astro-turfed versions of populism.

But Oklahoma DID pass that kind of anti-solar legislation described above, and the governor signed it. Not surprising really; Oklahoma is a backward very red state pretty much owned and operated by the fossil fuel industry.

We have a battle to fight; the benefits of winning it are huge, even life itself on this planet. The enemy is conservatives, the enemy is big oil, the enemy is the fossil fuel industry.

Or maybe we should just abbreviate that to 'the dinosaurs and the old fossils' who hate and fear change, and who are stuck years in the past, even millennia.

And let us not forget the fools, including this one below, who made the incredibly stupid and factually inaccurate statements below, a little over a year ago. He is as big if not a bigger shame to the state than Michele Bachmann.

Friday, April 18, 2014

This site tracks the current Reagan Bush
Debt.
The Reagan-Bush Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States is attributable
to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.

As of
Friday, April 18, 2014
at
4:25:36PM
CT,

The Current ReaganBush Debt is:

$16,297,305,286,733.60

which means that in a total of 20
years,
these three presidents have led to the creation of

93.03%

of the entire national debt

in only
8.4034%
of the
238
years of the existence of the United States of America.

Good Friday is the day which commemorates the death of Jesus on the cross, leading to the resurrection. The technical term for that period is the Paschal Triduum, something you can trot out at the water cooler (if you feel like showing off). The Paschal Triduum was not always celebrated the way we do now; it used to be different by half a day, but that changed in 1955 under Pope Pius XII.

The official Easter season does not end on Sunday, but goes through Pentecost, 50 days later. The Sunday a week after Easter is called Ember Sunday, except in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, and appears to be another one of those pagan holidays co-opted by Christianity.

So we all pretty much know that Easter celebrates Jesus rising from the dead, and that before that, Jesus was attributed with the act of raising Lazarus from the dead.
But in Christianity, that used to be pretty common; some 400 saints, according to their specific history or hagiography, became saints in part because they supposedly also raised the dead. The gospels command believers to raise the dead ( Matthew 10:8 “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely you have received, freely give.” ) and St. Paul is credited in the book of Acts with raising Eutychus in Acts 20:12. Eutychus was a man who dozed off because Paul's preaching was boring, and Eutychus fell asleep, and then fell out of a window where he was sitting.

YUP, in the U.S. we have crazy fundamentalists, or as some of us refer to them more colloquially, 'fundies' who are part of a world-wide movement that believes they can raise the dead -- and they run around trying to raise 21st century corpses.

As the Freethinker noted, in the U.S., in Washington state, there is a group called the Dead Raising Team; they claim to have raised 11 people from the dead, but of course, they can't produce any of them. In the U.K., the BBC did a news piece on the global evangelical movement; there is a documentary about them called "the Deadraisers", and of course, youtube videos.

They actually complain about a lack of available corpses to practice on. Although some of these fundies reject modern medical care in favor of exclusive reliance on prayer, which does seem to provide them with dead people on a regular basis.

Personally, I see this as nothing more than more groups of religious charlatans, giving religion a bad name, and embracing superstition rather than spirituality.
But what the heck, it might just be the thing you need to change the subject if your crazy conservative uncle starts ranting about Obamacare, nazis, or domestic terrorists like Cliven Bundy and the dangerous militia groups out in Nevada.

If dead raising doesn't change-up the mood, there is always creating vaginas in the laboratory to fall back on. If you get one of those transplanted in, is a woman a virgin again?

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Like believing in gravity, 'belief', sincere or otherwise, is not a requisite for the federal government to exist and to be effective.

Like gravity, ignoring the federal government could both surprise and hurt.

Shoot the cattle, not the protesters, then take away the land; if anyone starts shooting, lock 'em up. Bunch of right wing domestic terrorists. The right wing nuts are hypocrites. The militia crowd that showed up armed are no better than any other criminals, bent on insurrection and violence. There is no difference between these guys and the two Boston marathon bombers; both were bent on violence, both were anti-U.S. government.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

As the news comes out about the shooting in Kansas of an old man, a boy, and a woman, allegedly carried out by an angry old white supremacist, we learn that while he targeted Jewish institutions, none of the three he killed were actually of that faith or ethnicity. He appears to have assumed they were, based on the location, although he was caught at what appears to be a public elementary school. It is unknown if he intended to shoot anyone there as well.

Craig Cobb is facing sentencing in North Dakota for threatening people in that town. He claims the shooter (alleged) was a long-time friend of his, and that he was in contact with him quite recently.

Cobb got a sweet plea deal, with sentencing set for April 29th,according to this No Dak news source, but that might still fall through, as the locals are seeking to have the prosecutor replaced and an actual trial held - with stiffer penalties.

BISMARCK – A sentencing date is set for April 29 for a white supremacist accused of terrorizing people in Leith, the small southwestern North Dakota town he targeted for a takeover last year.
Craig Cobb entered guilty pleas Feb. 27 to one charge of felony terrorizing and five counts of misdemeanor menacing as part of a plea deal with Grant County State’s Attorney Todd Schwarz that would require Cobb to serve four years of supervised probation but no additional jail time.
Judge David Reich said he wanted more information before accepting the plea agreement and sentencing Cobb, and he ordered a pre-sentence investigation, including a psychological evaluation.
The investigator’s sealed report was filed in Grant County District Court late last week.
Cobb’s sentencing is set for 11 a.m. April 29 at the Burleigh County Courthouse in Bismarck. A July 15 jury trial has been canceled.
Cobb, who is wanted on a hate-crime charge in Canada, moved to Leith a year ago and bought up property there with hopes of creating an all-white enclave.
Last week, Leith Mayor Ryan Schock, City Councilman Lee Cook and New Leipzig resident Gregory Bruce, the city’s website developer, filed a complaint with the North Dakota Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Board alleging unprofessional conduct and possible unethical practices by Schwarz. They’re asking the board to censure Schwarz, remove him from the Cobb case and appoint a special prosecutor to bring Cobb to trial.

Cobbs relationship with the other violent right winger is detailed here, and since this was written it is my understanding that Eric Holder has directed this be taken to court as a federal hate crime - and rightly so.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - White supremacist Craig Cobb is friends with a man jailed in the killing of three people at a Jewish community center and Jewish retirement complex near Kansas City on Sunday.
Cobb says he last spoke with Frazier Glenn Cross on Thursday and that Cross gave no indication that he might be planning an attack.
Cobb says the allegations against Cross have nothing to do with him and so he isn't commenting. But he says he hopes Cross didn't do it.
Cobb is jailed in North Dakota while he awaits an April 29 sentencing for terrorizing residents of Leith.
Cross, of Aurora, Mo., hasn't been formally charged in the Kansas City killings, but U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom says there's enough evidence to justify submitting a hate-crimes case to a grand jury.

Tim Scannell should resign. This man has behaved so badly, including himself being a scofflaw by ignoring a restraining order against him, and has behaved so badly in his inappropriate relationship with an underage girl, that he cannot credibly do his job.

When Scannell was shot by a man he prosecuted and convicted - for the same thing - the man accused him of exactly that, of himself doing what he prosecuted others for doing.

There is a sad, sick culture of much older men, guns, and underage girls, of exploitation and of intimidation in this part of Minnesota.

Scannell needs to go, and if it takes going to jail to get rid of him, then a conviction cannot come too soon. He has discredited his office, himself, and he has abused his authority and the trust that was placed in him.

Scannell apparently began this 'romantic' relationship when the girl was much younger than 17, although he claims he did not have sex with her until then.

Duluth, MN (NNCNOW.com)--- St. Louis County District Court judge Shaun Floerke has decided not to dismiss the indictment against the Cook County Attorney accused of criminal sexual misconduct.

Judge Floerke ruled Friday that there was enough evidence for a grand jury to indict Tim Scannell on two counts of fourth degree sexual misconduct for an alleged inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old girl.
Scannell's attorney also argued that Scannell's position of authority over the girl shouldn't have been allowed into evidence saying the grand jury was confused by it...but Floerke ruled that there was enough evidence presented to the grand jury showing Scannell held a parental role in the victim's life.
Scannell has been on medical leave from his job as Cook County Attorney since October of 2013.

Monday, April 14, 2014

1- If you believe that the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Liberal oppressors in order to take your guns away, you may be a new Republican.

2- If you will do anything within your power to defend the rights of an eight week old fetus, then fight to put an end to programs that may feed a three year old child, you may be a new Republican.

3- If you compare gay marriage to zoophilia and use that as an excuse to trample basic civil rights of homosexuals, you may be a new Republican.

4- If you believe the Koch brothers are true American freedom fighters spending hundreds of millions of dollars tirelessly fighting for your liberty, you may be a new Republican. And an idiot!

5- If you argue that an ex-convict in Chicago should not have the right to vote, but an ex-convict in Chattanooga should be able to exercise his/her second amendment rights, you may be a new Republican.

6- If you argue against marijuana legalization while finding nothing wrong with opium based pain killers, you may be a new Republican. And if you find no link to these pain killers and the sudden surge in heroin usage, you may be blind.

7- If you are anti abortion and pro death penalty, you may be a new Republican. Not too mention a hypocrite. According to your own "good book", both souls are filled with sin.

A couple of my own thrown in for good measure:

1. If you believe in atomic energy, but deny atomic decay can be used to determine the age of ancient artifacts, you might be a New Republican

2. If you deny that animals with more useful traits are more likely to survive and breed (that's the essence of natural selection), you might be a New Republican (e.g. if you deny evolution, you might be a New Republican).

3. If you deny there is sufficient scientific research confirming the relatively simply concept of natural selection, but then believe in things like irreducible complexability (a concept disproven at the Dover Trial on Evolution), or any of the other crack-pot ideas for which there is nearly zero scientific research, you might be a New Republican.

and one from me - our first 'you might be a New Republican' visual:

1. If you would actually have this in your yard, and use it with pride, you might be a New Republican.

He cites Acts 2:19-20 as a sign: "And I will show wonders in Heaven
above and signs in the Earth beneath, the sun shall be turned into
darkness and the moon into blood before the coming of the great and
awesome day of the Lord."In extensive remarks available online
on his interpretation of the Blood Moons, Hagee says, "I believe that
the heavens are God's billboard, that He has been sending signals to
planet Earth, and we just haven't been picking them up."
He adds: "God is literally screaming at the world: 'I'm coming soon.'"
A
spokesman for the televangelist said tells USA TODAY on Monday that
Hagee "has not associated the blood moons with the end of days."

3. You might be a New Republican, if you obsess over reproductive body parts:

Turning up the heat on right wing lies

Opinions

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov, "A Cult of Ignorance," Newsweek (Jan. 1980)

We stand with PP

past wisdom

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."Billy Graham - Parade (1 February 1981)

An astute observation from Bertrand Russell

"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."

Penigma is pro-feminism, pro-thought

Ignorance is a choice

Just Do it!

Search This Blog

Follow by Email

You Are Here

Rules

Citing factual sources is encouraged, and critical reasoning is prized here. Spam comments will be removed. Harassment, intimidation, or interference will not be tolerated.

2. Trolls and flamers will be warned; if they continue they will be banned.

Discourteous behavior discourages discussion and debate, and is contrary to sharing the widest possible range of view points.

3. We will try to be scrupulous in giving credit and proper attribution, and also in disclosing associations that are a potential bias.

We ask that you do so as well.

4. Courtesy is expected and required.

Penigma is NOT an 'adults only' blog. We deal with a range of subjects that include those which are controversial, and are of interest to mature individuals rather than young children.

We intend this blog to be suitable for readers under the age of 18. Therefore, a condition of participating here is that our comments be self-edited, avoiding obscenities or similarly vulgar, abusive, threatening, insulting, or otherwise objectionable language when expressing opinions. Substantive points can be made without it.

5. We welcome suggestions and corrections, either through our comment option, or by use of the above contact email.

This is a moderated blog; there may be some delay between writing a comment and when it is posted by an administrator. We will attempt to be as prompt as possible, but ask your patience.

We hope that you enjoy reading Penigma, and encourage you to share your thoughts with us and the Penigma readers in turn, even if you disagree with us. _________________

The opinions expressed on this web log are the personal opinions of the authors. No reproduction or re-use of these personal works or articles published on Penigma.blogspot.com is permitted without the expressed written consent of the author; they are intellectual property, and so is this blog.

No rights of privacy or ownership by the commenter exists over comments. Once they are submitted to Penigma they become an integral part of the Penigma content and become part of our intellectual property. _________